Bad news for Democrats.

The WeinerGate election takes place tomorrow and it is not looking good for Democrats.

Republican nutbags in Weiner’s district may pull off a reverse Hochul. Why? Because of Democrats’ failure to understand that the NY-9 race is very different from the NY-26 race, in which Kathy Hochul upset Jane Corwin by making the election a referendum on Medicare and Paul “Baby Blue Eyes” Ryan’s attempt to figuratively murder your grandma by turning Medicare into a voucher program.

Everybody loves Medicare. Not everybody loves same-sex marriage, and the NY-9 race has become a referendum on same-sex marriage, as evidenced by Democratic State Senator Ruben Diaz’s robo-call efforts slamming Democratic candidate Weprin for his pro-same sex marriage stance:

In the robo-call, sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage and recorded in Spanish, Diaz denounces Weprin for his vote for same-sex marriage in June of this year. “David Weprin betrayed New York families when he voted to impose same sex marriage,” Diaz says, according to a translation. “Weprin voted to impose gay marriage against the wishes of our community. Worse, he refused to allow the people of New York to decide this issue by allowing us to vote on marriage, as voters in 31 other states have been able to do. Our families face terrible consequences because of David Weprin. Join me, Democratic state senator Ruben Diaz, in supporting Bob Turner for Congress on September 13.”

The Latino community in New York’s 9th congressional district is sizable and could sway Tuesday’s election. “There are around 100,000 Latinos in the district, of whom 40,000 are registered voters, including 27,000 Democrats, according to U.S. Census data and voter registration data,” City Hall News reported recently. “For context, there are approximately 33,000 registered Jewish Democrats in the district.”

A poll released Sunday night by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling showed that a plurality of voters in the district oppose same-sex marriage–45% say it should be illegal, 41% say legal, and 14% aren’t sure. While 29% of all likely voters in the district said the issue of same-sex marriage is “very important” in “deciding who to vote for for Congress,” 38% of Hispanic voters said the issue is “very important” to them.

Diaz is not the only Democrat who has crossed party lines to support Republican Bob Turner:

But New York liberals like Weprin are beginning to see problems arise among other blocs, too. As the New York Times reports, “Larry Yang, the Korean-American owner of a hardware store,” in Queens was opposed to a public advertisement for same-sex weddings in his neighborhood and “many among the large number of Korean-American Christians in Queens felt similarly but feared that if they spoke out they would be demonized by a liberal majority.”

While conservatives have long worried that immigration and changing demographics would harm them politically, social issues may prove to be the wedge that could be the GOP’s saving grace.

“If [the Democrat] loses, it will be because of the demographics,” says Hank Sheinkopf, a New York Democratic consultant.

Here’s the hard truth: When it comes to same sex marriage, the country is not there yet. It simply isn’t. And failing to take into account that not all Democrats are hardline supporters of all progressive causes — in this case, same-sex marriage — will doom Democrats to failure in 2012.

While the media and Professional Left blame what is shaping up to be a loss in NY-9 on Obama and the economy, we mustn’t forget that oftentimes, social issues resonate more loudly with voters than economic issues; it’s why the evangelicals have so much success in whipping up support by yammering on about the evils of aborshun and teh gayz.

And, in my view, the third option — Doing and Saying Shit is not feasible — not in this environment.

Yes, a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. But, this is a new trend (new, as in “May of this year” new) and the percentage is 53 — only 53 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage. That means almost half the country does not support same sex marriage. 53 percent is not enough, generally, and certainly not enough, specifically, such that President Obama could come out guns blazing in favor of same-sex marriage and not get creamed for it at the ballot box.

As such, I’m fine with President Obama continuing to DO instead of SAY.

You may call it “apologism,” I call it “pragmatism.”

UPDATE: Before this gets any further out of hand: I AM NOT DEFENDING BIGOTRY nor am I saying that Weprin is “insufficiently bigoted.” I am simply pointing out — inartfully perhaps — that the howling by those who would like for Obama to come out and SAY he supports gay marriage ignores that the country as a whole is not there yet, and if Obama were to come out and say he supports gay marriage, it would likely kill his reelection chances. And, given that President Obama has DONE more than any other President to bring about equality for LGBT, I’m ok with President Obama’s current political stance. Would I like for him to come out in support of same-sex marriage? Of course. Would I like him to do so if it meant no actions would be taken to further equality for LGBTQ community (because we’d have a President Perry who wants a marriage amendment to the Constitution)? Absolutely not. My apologies to those who misunderstood me: I am trying to draw a distinction between actions that advance political goals and words that advance political goals when, in light of the political landscape, combining the two isn’t feasible because it would lead to nothing being accomplished in furtherance of the marriage equality goal.

A 4% spread in a low turn-out special election doesn’t seem that significan especially when the latino vote is still 67.5% democratic.

While 29% of all likely voters in the district said the issue of same-sex marriage is “very important” in “deciding who to vote for for Congress,” 38% of Hispanic voters said the issue is “very important” to them.

This means nothing because it doesn’t break down what side they break when saying “very important.”
But I’m a hopey/changy kind of guy.

And as Maddow seems to want to demonstrate, opposing same-sex marriage is enough to make you a single-issue Republican voter. Supporting same-sex marriage just can’t seem to swing people as single-issue Democrats. It’s the same devil’s game every progressive encounters. People will vote against you or stay home if you show even the slightest hesitation in fully embracing their pet issues. But supporting every progressive issue (or even just every majority-popular progressive issue) will inevitably leave you with less than 50% of the vote.

So Maddow leaves the most homo-friendly President we’ve had in US History twist in the wind to score points in a match she already won (gay marriage is still legal in NY, right?) on the eve of a hotly contested blue district fight.

@punkdavid: I thought ABL was using the election to explain that we shouldn’t make enemies of our friends because we have actual real enemies to deal with. But she can correct me if I read her incorrectly.

Um, what is the point of this? That if the Dem loses in the election, it’s the gays’ fault and not Obamas? Is that really the argument you’re making? If so, it’s completely idiotic. And what are you then proposing instead? If America “just isn’t there yet” on gay marriage (53% of the general populace or no), then what? Strip away whatever paltry rights the gay community has managed to claw for itself for fear of losing close Congressional races? Are you really that callow and soul-less? Jesus

This seat was always going to be hard to hold: it’s a relatively Republican one, the Dem candidate isn’t strong, and the economy sucks. Then there’s the issue you touch on: antigay bigotry, which exists in disproportionate percentages among Orthodox Jews and churchgoing Latinos…

Meh. You go into elections with the candidates you have, not the candidates you WISH you had.

I know zero about this election or this district, but I just have to say all of the sturm und drang annoys me. Maybe if Weiner hadn’t sent pictures of his dick around the internet we wouldn’t be in this position but there you are.

If Weiner had kept his seat and just said he wouldn’t run for re-election when his term was up we might be in a different position. There would have been time to find a suitable candidate for his seat, for one thing.

I was raised Jewish as well, and am likewise not too fond of Orthodox Judaism. Anyone who screams bloody murder about the horrible way that the evil Moos-lims treat women and gays and then in the same breath turns around and praises Israel and Judaism to the stars just has not done their homework. I will be going out tomorrow morning and voting for Weprin, and I hope that the polls are not indicative of what will actually happen, but I guess we’ll see.

Weprin is not going to lose because of gay marriage, or because of the ground zero mosque (though both will certainly hurt him among the Orthodox Jews in his district–Orthodox Jews, of course, being New York’s version of the Moral Majority), he’ll lose because he simply hasn’t given voters in his district a good enough reason to vote for him. Democratic candidates need to get better at making the social issues minor distractions. Democrats’ bread and butter is pocketbook issues, especially nowadays, with the reactionary policies Republicans are voting for. They have to make those the story. Democrats need to make social issues non-issues.

The same dynamic is playing out in Toronto. Liberals were in favor of generous immigration policies. New immigrants come in, settle in the suburbs of Toronto…and vote conservative. Hence Toronto’s conservative mayor who refused to participate in the city’s Gay Pride parade — and wants to cut taxes and services. Sound familiar?

Nice to know ABL is peachy keen with bigotry as long as it is not aimed at her.

Fuck you, ABL.

Also too: In retrospect, wasn’t it AWESOME and wise and savvy of NANCY SMASH to force Weiner out of office for a few dick pics? Unlike George W Bush, of course, who she refused to force out of office for lying to the American public and killing thousands of Americans and Iraqis…yeah, that Nancy Smash is a real smart politician.

President Obama would fund his $447 billion plan to create jobs largely by raising taxes on wealthier families, White House aides said Monday after the president again called on Congress to support the package.

… Aides revealed for the first time that the plan will include limits on itemized deductions for individuals who earn more than $200,000 a year and families that earn more than $250,000.

Eliminating those deductions will bring in an additional $400 billion in revenue, said Jack Lew, director of the Office of Management and Budget.

The administration also is recommending closing oil and gas loopholes and changing the depreciation rules for corporate airplanes. All of the new rules, which would take effect in 2013, would bring in an estimated total of $467 billion, more than enough to pay for the president’s jobs bill, Lew said during the White House’s daily press briefing Monday.

“we mustn’t forget that oftentimes, social issues resonate more loudly with voters than economic issues; it’s why the evangelicals have so much success in whipping up support by yammering on about the evils of aborshun and teh gayz.”

In fact, a small fraction of people vote on these issues, although social issues can have a significant impact when both parties are pro-Wall Street and pro-corporate power. When Dems fail to distinguish themselves sufficiently from Republicans — and fail to distinguish themselves, period — they open up the possibility that social issues become factors. Maybe Dems should, I dunno, try adopting economic policies that are supported by huge majorities?

I’ve heard this argument before, but I always found it a little condescending. Would you support an economic populist if he or she were anti-gay or some other type of bigot, or anti-choice, or anti-separation of church and state, etc.?

Umm, as any attorney would say, this assertion is “assuming facts not in evidence” – merely pointing out that prejudice exists, and can affect an electorate’s voting pattern – and that some politicians and/or commentators can get clueless about it – is scarcely the same as a “defense”.

And, I’m not sure what the point of this post is. Yes, Weprin is getting beat up for not being sufficiently bigoted. Should he have been more so? Clearly not. So what are you saying here?

Change the conversation, like any good politician. Stop letting the race be about gay marriage (because, let’s face it, Congress isn’t going to touch that again for another four years anyway) and start making it about winning issues like Medicare, immigration, and economics.

This was Anthony Weiner’s old district for Christ’s sake. Ask him for some pointers. He clearly knew his shit.

But if tomorrow the President announced his support for gay marriage, do you think ABL would criticize this move as stupid politically and blast him for putting his reelection in danger? Or do you think she would praising his courage?

So, the takeaway I’m supposed to get from this is that Democrats/liberals/progressives will gleefully torpedo any electoral advantage they can get because they throw a tantrum every time someone votes/doesn’t vote for one of their pet peeves?

Lesson learned a long time ago. Christ, people of the liberal persuasion need to grow the fuck up and start learning how to pick their battles, instead of throwing a fucking tantrum like a three-year old.*

* No slur intended towards three year olds, who in general can think of their own best interests and act in a far more strategic manner than most folks of the liberal persuasion seem capable of.

EDIT: Thanks for the dick pics, Weiner. Hope it was good for you. Certainly, you’ve screwed the rest of the country nicely by depriving us of a much-needed seat.

I’m completely ignorant about this election but in the finest BJ tradition that fact will impact not one whit on my decision to comment on it…

the NY-9 race has become a referendum on same-sex marriage

The race “has become”? This is kind of an odd passive-voice construction. I’d suspect that one of the candidates, and/or their circle of supporters, made it a referendum. Either Weprin made gay marriage an issue in the election to win support in the LGBTQ community or Turner made gay marriage an issue in the election to create a wedge; it really doesn’t matter which way it started. If Weprin tries to soft-pedal, concede, compromise, and walk away from his beliefs he’ll get rolled up. If he stands up for his beliefs, calls out the bigots as bigots, points out that their bigotry acts in the service of the Republican agenda of economic destruction, and exposes the wedge issue for what it is — he still might get rolled up. Or he might win.

If he loses, at least he took a stand on principle and he can come back next year and run again.

The issue here is tactics in the face of bigotry. It has nothing to do with Obama.

This seems like an extremely well-crafted 11 dimensional defense of the president… trust me, people who simultaneously give him stunningly low approval ratings are voting for Republicans because of… gay marriage. Not due to the fact that the economy is in the shitter and they don’t have jobs.

Depends on the district. But I’ll support an antichoice Dem like Marcy Kaptur against a Republican, and I supported antichoice Harry Reid in his race against Teabagger Sharon Angle, and I used to support antichoice David Bonoir because he was so good on war and peace and worker issues. That doesn’t mean I didn’t wish he were better on equal rights for women.

Tried to edit above hasty comment, but was blocked for some permission reason that seems mystifying. Anyway, What I want to say, is:

For endorsing the Republican in a very public manner in a closely-watched election like this, fuckin homophobe Ruben Diaz should never get a freakin’ dime from another Democrat, especially any Democratic organization, union, etc.

His name should never pass the lips of a Democrat except when combined with the phrase “got primaried and lost his seat.”

@Guster: The area in question isn’t very Orthodox (it does have a lot of Central Asian groups) but it is very Jewish and pro-Israel. I think the issue that’s killing Weprin, besides his being boring, is that President Obama has been portrayed as anti-Israel and Weprin/Democrats are being punished for that. Weprin has also defended the right of Park51 (the Muslim community center) to be built not far from the WTC site.

Here’s the deal….Go ahead and say President Obama has low approval ratings. Go ahead and say some people don’t like gays being able to marry. Don’t link the two. Also, if you’re going to slander ABL & President Obama, you may want to explain the lying and racist ads the Republican is running, like Ground Zero Mosque, etc.

You want Pamela Geller for a Representative? Vote for her. Myself, I think she’s only good for being John Bolton’s fluffer.

It’s not even anti-gay, it being not full-frontal pro-gay. As ABL points out at the top, Obama is DOING a lot of pro-gay stuff, just not taking a pro-gay stance. That is the Worst Thing in the World(TM) for david mizner.

is pretty much of a non-statement itself: or at the least, simply a your subjective opinion: I have read ABL’s post over again (twice), and any “defense” of any “bigoted position” seems quite lacking.

I realize that “Dumping On ABL” is a popular pastime here at Balloon Juice; but said dumps might carry a bit more weight if they were based on, oh, I don’t know, maybe ABL’s actual statements , rather than
tortured inferences backed up by high-handed dismissals.

@PurpleGirl: I’m very Jewish and pro-Israel, and I’d support Park51 built right the fuck beside the WTC site. Fucking bigots. I don’t mind Christian bigots, because goyim are notoriously stupid, but Jewish bigots get right up my big nose.

Obama _is_ anti-Israel, because he’s not getting in Bibi’s face like a Tel Aviv sherut driver and telling him to back the fuck off.

Any non-Orthodox Jew who thinks Obama is being too confrontational with Israel should get his membership revoked and his foreskin stapled back on. The women get a pass. I don’t mess with Jewish women.

Alright, let’s forget about morality — we both support equal rights — and talk politics.

I don’t think it’s true that coming out in support of gay marriage would doom his reelection as you claim, but I’d love for you to produce poll findings showing it would.

In any case, do you really think supporting equal rights for gays and lesbians would hurt his reelection more than, say, the miserable HAMP or his seeking to cut Medicare and Social Security? Which is to say your focus on pragmatism is extremely selective.

Wasn’t Anthony Weiner liberal on social issues? And it can’t be that his sanguinary stance toward Palestine balanced it out — Weprin is similarly hawkish.

Also, if there’s a belief that Obama is anti-Israel, Weiner is partially responsible for it — he was one of the Democratic congressmembers most visibly attacking Obama for his (completely reasonable) remarks about Israeli settlements and borders.

There is probably some reactionary pushback on social issues involved here, but that will pass. There is probably also the (ridiculous) idea that Obama and Democrats are unfriendly to Israel. And there’s the simple fact that Democrats are currently burdened with the poor economy. I don’t think this seat would be safe for the Democrats if they had merely nominated someone who opposed gay marriage.

I don’t think it’s the worst thing in the world, and I think the President has done many good things on gay rights — he’s objectively done more for the rights of gays and lesbians than any other president in history.(Where I might part company with many here is that I believe the aggressive activism of gay rights supporters deserves some of the credit.)

And I acknowledge that it would be somewhat politically risky for him to support gay marriage, but I think the risk is overstated (often by people who overlook all the much more risky things the president has done), and that given the moral imperative, the chance to get on the right side of history, to lead, and the potential “conviction” points it would give him along with the nice jolt it would give part of his base, I can’t defend his holding that bigoted position. Do the right thing dammit.

@Baud: Society changes as it does. You can make things illegal (drugs, abortion, immigration, etc) but you can’t stop them from happening. I like to say, “You can’t dam the ocean.” There is only so much law can direct nature. Not to say there aren’t good reasons for law to attempt to redirect nature, but when law is used to overhaul the fabric of society, it almost inevitably fails.

However, law and government is very well tailored to affect tax policy and wealth distribution, and can make a substantial difference in the lives of more people by a small redirection of the flow of wealth than they can affect people through a major redirection in the flow of societal mores.

As a cynic, I realize that one reason that Roe v. Wade has not been overturned in nearly 40 years is because the GOP like to string their voters along to keep voting against their economic interests. But it also hasn’t happened because they know they can’t actually do it.

@kindness: I was going to write a long and substantive post but then deleted it, realizing that you are probably a soul-crushingly stupid little troll. So I’ll just say this quickly:

The race is a mess because of a shittily run campaign on the Democratic side, an absolute disgrace of putrid smear on the Republican side, and ugly macro AND political conditions (jobs and Weinergate) that make it tough on Team Blue. There are many different ways to analyze how and why this race has become so bad for the Democrats.

But instead of doing that, ABL has, as is her constant wont, woven together disparate and senseless threads into the latest “OBAMA RULZ AINT HIS FAWLT” paean. Who the fuck said it WAS Obama’s fault? And let’s add in a little dash of inconsequential (to this race, as shown by polls on what the voters there actually, you know, care about) issue defense, to rationalize the president’s extremely pathetic “I believe in equality… just not the word marriage… but I also realize that I probably have just been saying that for political expedience to get enough support from Teh Gays while not inflaming the independent voters… so I’ll have my flacks go out and say that I am ‘evolving’ on this issue.”

Isn’t the story that up until two weeks ago it was a slam dunk for the Democractic candidate and then flipped Republican overnight? That doesn’t sound like the economy or Obama bashing, that sounds like voters punishing a candidate for something he did. Voting for gay marriage makes sense with that logic.

isn’t it also kind of not helpful that Weprin is a machine politician with no real base of support? He’s described as “personality-free” in at least one piece on the guy.

if he had a base, if he was a good campaigner, negative attacks like homophobic robo-calls wouldn’t make that much of a difference.
Fifty-six% of weiner’s constituents wanted him to stay on. That bears mentioning.

@Guster: and @Cluttered Mind:
One of my brothers is Labovich, hardcore even for Labovich, got an arranged marriage and moved to Israel to be an ultra-orthodox Rabbi. So I will say first hand: You guys are if anything praising with faint damns. I gave up Judaism and I still can’t stand their interpretation, which so slavishly adulates the rules that it abandons the spirit of the covenant in every aspect. They’re like fundie Christians.

…Celestia, I sound so Jewish. You can take the religion out, but not the upbringing, I guess.

Bullshit. So what if he says he’s for gay marriage? Nobody’s mind has been changed. Dems in congress can’t even manage to support him on issues that aren’t controversial. Do you really want to see a vote on gay marriage in this congress?

More to the point, mebbe, I thought it was, um, odd, to take thus race where there are various reasons for the closeness, a few apparently more important than gay marriage, and turn it into evidence that the President is doing the right thing by opposing gay marriage.

I’d like to add that I think — and I said I think, I’ll be the first to cop to the fact that I don’t have my hands on any hard data, I’m just spitballin’ here — that while the numbers on this issue may be close, the intensity that is brought to this debate probably favors the “anti” side of marriage equality.

My sense is that the people who are against marriage equality are really against it — it takes a lot of energy to hate and a whole lot of energy to care about something that doesn’t directl and personally impact you. So between the “pro” and “anti”, you’ve got to assume that the “anti” people almost universally really really care about beating back the marriage equality movement.

I’m not sure you can say the same thing about everybody on the “pro” side. Even if you assume that the entire LGBT population is 100% staunchly and passionately committed to achieving marriage equality, that population still constitutes a relatively small percentage of the general public. Which means that the majority of the “pro” marriage equality voters are heterosexual progressives who believe in sexual orientation equality but whose lives are not directly impacted by the debate.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m a big fan of marriage equality and I’ve written elsewhere about how pleased I was when New York voted in favor of it. I understand that recognizing marriage equality impacts my life in that it makes my country more the nation that it is supposed to be. But as a straight dude there is no direct and personal impact on my life one way or another. Not as there would be if I were gay, or as there would be if I were rabidly Christianist and thought gay marriage would Doom Us All.

So if the numbers between “pro” and “anti” are as close as they appear, then I think we have to also take into consideration that while the “pro” side may have the edge in sheer numbers, the “anti” side might have a larger edge in its commitment to the cause.

And as we all know, voter enthusiasm very often is what elections turn on.

@punkdavid: I agree that there a limits to what law and government can do, but I don’t share your philosophy. I guess I don’t see government as that divorced from the rest of society as I think you do.

See, now, Mr. Diaz, this is the part I don’t ever understand: “Our families face terrible consequences…” Really? How so? what might happen to families which already exist, if there is a gay marriage, say, next door? What harm can befall your family? I’m not trying to be obtuse. It honestly seems like a ridiculous argument. You personally don’t approve, your religion doesn’t approve, you think the children coming from such a marriage will have a harder time, I don’t agree, but whatever, fine. I at least see where the point comes from. The “our families/marriages are so FLIMSY! They are in constant peril!” argument seems so so weird.

I didn’t realize that the republicans were (apparently successfully) using gay marriage as a wedge issue in New York City. I learned something from the OP.

You actually had something insightful to say in your first paragraph (I agree). You then degenerated into poo-flinging in the second part. Why? It’s not even remotely an honest summary of what she wrote.

“How to alienate your friends and piss off your allies” is not diplomacy…

I was going to say something similar. I agree; I think there’s more energy on the “anti-” side. (That’s another thing the Republicans are good at – is finding those high energy issues. That’s what makes something a good wedge issue – not just divisiveness but energetic divisiveness.

@Frankensteinbeck: When I was in high school, one of my best friends lost his mother to liver disease. Her funeral was in a church, as she was Catholic and such were her wishes. My friend and I had a mutual friend who wanted to go to the funeral with me and the rest of his friends, but she was forbidden to go by her Hasidic father who refused to permit her to set foot inside a church. Last I heard of this girl, she had moved to Israel, gotten married, and is now living a super-orthodox lifestyle married to a guy who I probably wouldn’t want anything at all to do with. I have a tendency to understate my point or use weaker language than is justified when I discuss issues either online or off, but you’re absolutely right on this one.

ABL: I don’t think you’re trying to defend the bigotry of Ruben Diaz (who, btw, is way nuttier than your post suggests; I’m guessing you’re not that familiar with New York politics). You’re trying to defend ideological non-commitment and ass-covering by national leaders… which is arguably the best option in many cases.

But it just doesn’t make sense to extrapolate from local to national politics the way you’re doing. David Weprin’s vote made sense for a New York state legislator representing District 24; same-sex marriage was passed in New York because a majority of legislators supported it, and they represent their constituents. Weprin is now running for the U.S. House in a district that contains a slightly different subset of New Yorkers, some of whom are more conservative on this issue. If he loses for that reason, that doesn’t mean he was wrong to vote as he did, and it doesn’t mean that he was rejected by New York or by America; it means that people in the 9th Congressional District don’t like him as much. Someone with the same record would do quite well in a different district.

Fuckin Ruben Diaz better never get a freakin’ dime from another Democrat, especially any Democratic organization, union, etc. His name should never pass the lips of a Democrat except when combined with the phrase “got primaried and lost his seat.”

I live in this district and I honestly have no effing clue what you are talking about. Gay marriage????

Here’s how stupid the Turner campaign is: they keep calling me (robo; I never pick up) and leaving me messages that this is the most important election EVA. Then they have Ed Koch call me (I actually like Ed) and whine like a son-of-a-bitch about what an idiot Weprin is.

Here’s how stupid the Weprin campaign is: I actually mistakenly picked up a live call from them and they asked if I was gonna vote for Weprin. I said that I’m not sure but most likely I’ll write in Weiner’s name. That’s right, I am sooooooo pissed that somebody else decided that I cannot choose my own congressperson that I’m probably gonna do that. The Weprin guy started yelling at me about what a pervert Weiner is. Yeah – that’s gonna get an undecided voter over to your side!!

Now I will admit that my phone has been off for 4 days because the calls would not stop but I have listened to the 11; that’s right 11, robo calls I’ve gotten in those 4 days and not one has been about gay marriage.

I will tell you this: Weprin is not a “liberal” He’s not an anything. He’s a party democrat. That is all.

If Weprin loses it’s because he’s a bad campaigner and because this district is a lot richer and older than anyone thinks it it. There are a boatload of old people and some of the most expensive houses in New York City. It is not uncommon for houses to sell at well over $1 million in just a week or two.

Lastly, just as a nastyish aside. When Weiner gave up his seat, Jane Hampsher over at FDL was insisting that this district is way too liberal to go repub. I wrote something similar to that last paragraph over there and she practically laughed me off the site. Rut Roh.

OOO as I am writing this Andrew Cuomo is leaving me a pro-Weprin message!!!

I’m here on the left Coast, 3000 miles from NY-9. That means that it’s difficult/impossible for me to know how competently Weprin campaigned, or what the issues are on the ground in NY-9. Has the district suffered an extraordinary impact from the economic downturn? Does the district have an energetic cadre of one-issue voters? Has the demographic mix of the district changed substantially during the last two years?

I’m not there so I have no basis for forming an opinion. It seems to me that people who aren’t there, or who aren’t tightly connected with people who are there, and who attempt regardless to interpret the import of the issues in play in NY-9 are overlaying their views on something that may be far more simple to explain.

This. Look, I’m gay (and not self-hating as far as I can tell), and I’d love to be able to get married in my home state. I’d love to have ENDA on the books. I’d love to have immigration rights for same-sex spouses. The fact of the matter is that, of the 53% who support same-sex marriage in some fashion, only a few make that a deal-breaker in deciding for whom to vote (and truth be told if I had a choice between an average Republican and a Democrat who was sound on everything except SSM, I’d hold my nose and vote for the Dem rather than abstain or jump ship). On the other side, I’d guess there are lots for whom support for same-sex marriage is a deal breaker, and some of these are people who might be willing to support a Dem on economic issues. I may not like this state of affairs, but I accept it’s the way things are.

Now, having said that, between the large Orthodox Jewish community and a substantial number of Hispanics, I’m guessing this is one of the least favorable districts in New York in which to wage a campaign that’s got people riled up about SSM.

And having said that, if you can’t get people riled up about what the Reps want to do to Social Security and Medicare in a district like this, you’re running an incompetent campaign.

Christ, Ed Fucking Koch, Joe Lieberman played in a minor key. What a dick.

Actually, the fact that you haven’t gotten these anti-gay calls just hints (at least to me) how fragmented and precise these marketing campaigns are. And hang on to your wigs and keys, ’cause from what I read you’re going to get a robo-call from Bubba Himself.

Here’s the hard truth: When it comes to same sex marriage, the country is not there yet. It simply isn’t. And failing to take into account that not all Democrats are hardline supporters of all progressive causes—in this case, same-sex marriage— will doom Democrats to failure in 2012.

So…politicians must not make a moral stand for the rights of the oppressed if the cost is too high?

Good thing ABL was not advising LBJ

Imagine a hundred-yard dash in which one of the two runners has his legs shackled together. He has progressed ten yards, while the unshackled runner has gone fifty yards. At that point the judges decide that the race is unfair. How do they rectify the situation? Do they merely remove the shackles and allow the race to proceed? Then they could say that “equal opportunity” now prevailed. But one of the runners would still be forty yards ahead of the other. Would it not be the better part of justice to allow the previously shackled runner to make up the forty-yard gap, or to start the race all over again? That would be affirmative action toward equality.
LBJ, Commencement Address at Howard University (June 4, 1965)

That sentence had nothing to do with rationally analyzing the demographics of NY-9, the causes of Weprin’s lack of popularity is what has been a reliably Democratic district, and/or how badly Turner will represent the interests of people who live in southern Brooklyn and Queens should they elect him (either directly or tacitly by not participating).

What’s interesting about the no anti-gay calls thing is that when he legislature was debating the issue Brian Brown from NOM robo called me at least twice a day. Even when I hit 1 for “I LIKE gay marriage” they kept wasting their money calling me. So those freaking bigots certainly have my number.

@Keith G:
But, but, but, if Democrats shy away from any and every principled stand that might alienate some cadre of one-issue voters then they can be elected and go on to support absolutely nothing save their own re-election. Voters will be galvanized by their complete lack of backbone.

It’s not just the orthodox jews…it’s the Koreans as well. I live in a very Korean neighborhood. They aren’t the friendliest people I’ve ever lived around (I am white, but very cool to ANYBODY). They are VERY fundie in their views of things. I know this because I do like Korean BBQ and I talk to the owner of the place. He’s young and very American in his thinking while the majority of the people I live with look and talk as if they came over here in the last 10 years or so.

Funny, their kids are awesome. Some of my best friends are Korean folks, so try not to read into this as bashing. Just using my experience as an analogy.

The Latinos will stay with the dem in the end because gay marriage isn’t that important to them. They know the GOP marginalizes them, so they will stick with the Dem.

You know, the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Act are really unpopular in the south. Democrats could pick up a lot of votes floating the idea of making them optional for each state to decide whether to follow or not. They don’t have to actually act on it, just be open to the idea. Besides all the black people will vote for Obama anyway. Hasn’t he did enough for them?

“Stacy’s murder galvanized anti-lynching activists, but President Roosevelt did not support the federal anti-lynching bill. He feared that support would cost him Southern votes in the 1936 election. He believed that he could accomplish more for more people by getting re-elected.”

Was FDR wrong or right? And if he was wrong, why do so many liberals promote and idolize him. Is it because it was only blacks who were being lynched and not gays?

And failing to take into account that not all Democrats are hardline supporters of all progressive causes—in this case, same-sex marriage— will doom Democrats to failure in 2012.

Astonishingly dopey. What’s hurting Dem prospects is high unemployment. Infighting between some of the tiny and inconsequential lefty factions over a marginal social issue is meaningless.

If unemployment were below 4%, Dems would be sitting pretty even if every one of them moonlighted officiating at gay weddings. Given where unemployment actually is now, Dems are struggling, and shifting positions on teh ghey wouldn’t do them any good at all.

I don’t think ABL is defending bigotry. I do think she’s obtuse about political reality, which, among other things, consists of economic issues trumping virtually everything else.

We generally seem unable to allow shades of gray. Explanations must be all one way or the other.

Turner, from what I have read, has made some stupid gaffes and has not turned out to be a particularly good candidate. That said, it would be a mistake to say that his stand on gay marriage is not further impacting his poor standing. The degree to which it does, maybe we will see at least some of it in the election rsults.

That said, isnt this district being redistricted out of existence soon?

If so, is this a discussion (ha!) we need to be having? How is this district to be redistributed? What do we need to do for the future to avoid further problems?

Selecting good candidates who can “run with the dogs” is the role of the Democratic party. Sad to say that the organization in New York appears to be about as good as our local Democratic Party in WA state. There is not much you can do when you have a clinker except hope to weather it and hope he doesnt add any more stupid to deal with.

@Jenny: ABL was making a general statement about how Dems were doomed in 2012 because of demands by lefty interest groups. Which is dopey; the economy is what matters there. Special elections are often about particular conditions in their location, and generalizing from them to general elections often isn’t useful.

As to this district, and tomorrow’s special election, I haven’t the foggiest if gay marriage is the driving issue in it (though from the accounts of those in-district of what they get robocalls about, it seems unlikely).

@Jenny: You are confused. The article to which you link is about Weiner’s first City Council election in District 48 which is in Brooklyn. We are now discussing his Congressional district which in NY-9 and it is both Brooklyn and Queens.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Please get your facts straight before you call me and my neighbors “ripe for race baiting, mooslim baiting, has fundies, and loves Bibi”

@Don K: i’m with you brother. the weprin campaign must suck ass. just making the point that even though it’s going in the right direction, right now taking the pro same sex marriage stand takes some stones. even though it might be risky, i admire all of the politicians who are standing up for what’s right. i can’t wait for the time when our society matures to the point that the gop is extinct.

One thing is true: The LGBT bloc really doesn’t fit well with the broader Democratic agenda.

The most notable discontinuity being that LGBTs have been fantastically successful at advancing our issues over the past 30 years, while liberalism as a whole has made a career out of backpeddling and shooting itself in the foot.

But maybe it would help if you guys gave us another sanctimonious lecture on how ineffectual and counterproductive our strategies are?